Liberal Mainstream Media Admits To Its Misdeeds For Once..

The MSM has admitted that it spun a story out of all proportion and had "totally twisted the remarks" of one expert in order to get them to fit the story they wanted to tell. KevinO 20:15, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Jeez, with blatant left-wing spin like that, no wonder Newsweekis dying: circulation down 40%, jobs slashed, revenue down 27%, a $29.3 million loss...

Stuff at the WaPo (Newsweek's parent company) like this and this has been been producing results both comic and tragic. So this was supposed to be a way to turn this around...

In a Washington Post web chat on April 27, one participant asked whether the Post would be “adding more conservative/Republican voices to better balance what is now your predominately liberal/Democratic leaning coverage?”

WaPo national editor Kevin Merida responded that, in addition to conservative columnists Charles Krauthammer and Kathleen Parker, “we recently have added to our staff the well-regarded Dave Weigel, who writes the new 'Right Now' blog.” (That blog is subtitled “Inside the conservative movement and Republican Party with Dave Weigel.”) Readers may perhaps be forgiven for concluding that Merida was suggesting that Weigel was not totally unsympathetic to the conservative movement.

But within a month, Merida did an about-face. Politicoreported that “Merida said he never asked Weigel about his politics.” Weigel, it turns out, had actually been hired on the recommendation of uber-lefty Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, who said he “presented him to the paper simply as the best reporter on the subject,” i.e., the conservative movement.

That news appeared the day after Weigel posted an apology on his WaPo blog for having posted a tweet two days previously, smearing opponents of gay marriage as “bigots.”

The next month Weigel commented on a conservative news site embedding a Youtube video of a member of Congress (a Democrat up for re-election) assaulting a student whose only offense was asking him on a public street whether he supported the President’s agenda. What was newsworthy about this, Weigel decided, was not the Congressman's violent response to the question, but that “just by riling up a member of Congress, the students have created the first conservative meme of the week.”

On June 24, Weigel posted yet another “An apology to my readers,” this time for wishing conservative commentator Matt Drudge would “set himself on fire”; for asking people not to give the conservative Washington Examiner “any traffic or links for a while” and to “resist” the “temptation” to follow up scoops by conservative reporter Byron York; and for calling supporters of libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul “Paultards.” Weigel made these comments in E-mails he sent to Klein's Journolist listserv, a secretive (and invitation-only) mailing list of about 400 left-wing journalists and Democratic Party spin doctors.

Five minutes after Weigel posted this second apology, FishbowlDC posted the excerpts from Weigel's Journolist E-mails. The next day, The Daily Caller showed that these were just the tip of an iceberg, posting further excerpts, for example: when conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh was rushed to the hospital with chest pains, Weigel cracking, “I hope he fails”; Weigel accusing conservatives of being motivated by “racism” and “white privilege”; trashing the Tea Party activists and conservatives Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and (again) Matt Drudge; trashing conservative Web sites World Net Daily and FreeRepublic.com and talk radio; complaining about the MSM giving equal time to (“f*****g moronic”) conservative views; calling conservatives “ratf*****s” (repeatedly); calling pro-life Democrat Rep. Daniel Lipinski a “monster”; calling Democrat Eric Massa a “political suicide bomber” for alleging bribery in connection with the passage of Obamacare; and spinning Republican Scott Brown's winning Teddy Kennedy's seat, doing damage control for the Democrats.

Within three hours, Klein announced, “Journolist is done now. I'll delete the group soon after this post goes live... insofar as the current version of Journolist has seen its archives become a weapon, and insofar as people's careers are now at stake, it has to die.”

Would any MSM outlet hire a similarly rabid liberal-hater to cover the left? 13:45, 26 June 2010 (EDT)FOIA 21:53, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

I cannot tell who is posting here, who is saying what....please fix this, or I will have to delete it. This was, by the way, carried on our front page. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:28, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

America's World Cup Team

Is it as obvious to anyone else, as it is to me, that America's team was eliminated because of the actions (or non-actions) of George W. Bush? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:32, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

It's George W. Bush's fault for the U.S. being eliminated early again in the World Cup ... of course!!!!--Andy Schlafly 22:53, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

That's as entirely specious an argument as is blaming Title IX in this case--unless you actually believe that an impoverished country like Ghana, with a population less than one-tenth of the USA and an annual per-capita GDP of well under $2000 can afford to spend more on developing men's soccer players than the USA. The American side simply ran into a strong team and an incredible goalkeeper. To blame anything else simply isn't cricket. KevinO 00:48, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

KevinO, as a Canadian, your particular expertise as to Title 9 is what, exactly? If you cannot see how the reprehensible George W. Bush is to blame for the disappointing finish of the U.S. World Cup team, I am afraid you just haven't opened your mind! The liberals here in the United States have managed to blame George W. Bush for nearly every negative development known to man, except (literally) the millions of lives he saved in Africa, and keeping us safe from terrorists. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 03:29, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

You assume too much. As an American who's spending some time in Canada, I have enough experience with Title IX from my college days, and with the obvious irrelevance of that particular bit of legislation as concerning matches between an American team that could afford to offer its players twenty million bucks if they won and a team from a developing country. KevinO 19:46, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

The US has not gotten in the top four since 1930. Title IX is from 1972. Unless Title IX is so bad as to create a temporal distortion, this argument seems questionable. In fact, US soccer has been getting steadily stronger over the last few years, with the US winning the Gold Cup in 2002. In 2006, the US would have likely done much better but got a very unlucky draw. I'm deeply curious what empirical support there is for the claim about Title IX. Title IX has certainly damaged many men's sports in the US, but the ones that have been seriously damaged are generally those which are much more obscure than soccer. JoshuaZ 00:07, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Title IX, Andy? George Bush, TK? Really? I was almost sure this was Obama's fault, since he not only caused the oil spill to demoralize the US boys, but also conspired with FIFA, filtering money to them through ACORN to convince the refs to ignore the Ghanans' egregious fouls and rob us of good goals by calling offsides falsely. Of course, this was only necessary because his previous attempts at getting the USA eliminated in the Group Stage failed, despite using the same tactics to get our goals agaist Slovenia and Algeria (a Muslim country, mind you. Coincidence??) disallowed.</ref> This he did, of course, because he's a Kenyan by birth and supports Africa and Socialist Europe at the expense of America, which he hates and wants to see humiliated in front of the rest of the world.

I find that most liberals have a self-loathing problem with their country, JDW...all that talk from them about us getting our just deserts, etc. etc. If there were a reputable clinical psychologist active in the wiki world, I would ask them about it, but the only ones I know of are ethically challenged. Obama has all the signs of it too, especially when he was on his "Apology" tour of the world. Fortunately he has become Carter II, and will have little lasting impact on the country. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 05:09, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

References

Latest SCOTUS Rulings...

Affirmed the right of Christian clubs to exclude as voting members students opposed to aspects of its mission.

Nice to see Conservapedia is once again shown to be ahead of the curve! Liberals vilify, attack and vandalize us daily because we don't allow them to run rampant on this wiki and ruin it. Now the greatest legal minds in the U.S. agree with us! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:06, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Still sorting through the opinions in that Christian club case. Your statement may be right but the decision is viewed as a defeat by Christian organizations because the school can still deny them official recognition and funding if they require statements of faith.--Andy Schlafly 23:03, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

From what I read, I thought that the court decided that schools could impose their liberal beliefs on Christian clubs. Ah well, at least they'll find it more difficult to argue for absurd gun "control" laws now. RaymondP 20:38, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

I may have jumped the gun on this one, the Christian Club case. If so, I certainly hope we will expose George W. Bush as the cause of this travesty! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:50, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Bilski isn't about the rights of small inventors under the Patent Clause. It's about the rights of applicants for "business method" patents under statute. Thanks. DavidE 14:16, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

The case did split 5-4 in ruling that business methods are still patentable, so your point is very well taken. But implicit in any ruling about the scope of patentability is the rights of small inventors. Large companies enjoying economies of scale or monopoly power are less dependent on patent rights.--Andy Schlafly 16:07, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Soccer is a Socialist Sport

Oh come on! I understand that these articles are, to a certain extent, meant facetiously, but they are still an insult to Conservapedia readers (I do not claim to be an editor) around the world who follow Association Football. The gist of both pieces seems to be: we don't like this and it seems a bit foreign, therefore it must be socialist and immoral. It's hard to know where to begin in tearing apart these silly articles, but I might focus on the following phrase in the American Thinker screed: "Where people have a choice, soccer is not the most popular sport." What is this even supposed to mean? People have a choice to play any sport they want in, say, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy or Spain. Yet they choose to play (what we call) football. "Starvation, archery, and badminton" are hardly the only alternatives in Hamburg, Copenhagen or London.

I do not understand the attraction of American football, but I do not choose to describe its fans as communists or fascists. A very unfortunate inclusion in the news pages. Jdixon 17:50, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

"Soccer is a redistributive dreamer's delight, with most of the potential risk-reward strategy of the sport removed by rule. It is a self-esteem cornucopia, where a blistering rout of, say, 2-0 seems so close in the score book. No one's feelings get hurt at 2-0. And on and on the socialist feel goes." --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:03, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

I refuse to rise to the bait. (Well, I suppose I have just risen to the bait. But I won't rise again.) The fact that I will be glued to the semi-final tomorrow does not make me any sort of leftie. Jdixon 21:30, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

Jdixon, this debate is all in good fun, of course. Please enjoy watching the match! (By the way, I wonder if "rise to the bait" is a mixed metaphor -- uh oh, we need an entry about that). Have fun!--Andy Schlafly 20:58, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

Confused about your Atheistic England comment as 3 of the 4 remaining teams are from Europe, the bastion of Atheistic thought!! -- Nroberts 16:19, 6 July 2010 (GMT+1)

Valid point, but England is far more atheistic than the remaining European nations, and the leading stars on the German team are from overwhelmingly Christian nations.--Andy Schlafly 11:42, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Although England may be an extremely liberal state, it is 70% Christian, the Netherlands is only 41% Christian!! (according to WorldFactBook) Clearly Soccor IS a liberal Socialist game!! I wonder how superficially religous Germany's players are, seeing as actual Christian countries were all knocked out early, pretty likely I'd think!--IScott 18:14, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Why soccer is a more conservative sport than American football

It is named more honestly. Naming a sport "football" in which the foot is rarely used is clearly an example of liberal deceit.

In soccer, time stops for no one, unlike American football, where the influence of liberal labor unions is obvious in the constant stoppage of time after achieving a mere few inches of movement.

A relatively small goal with a strong gatekeeper, just like the free market. Therefore, achieving something meaningful in soccer is a relatively rare achievement, as it is in real life. There are no points given for merely walking over a line or sailing a ball over everyone's head in the general direction of a vaguely-defined goalpost. No liberal self-esteem boosters in this sport, thank you.

More honest and economical language: compare relatively straightforward, low word-to-content ratios of soccer terms such as corner, self-goal, penalty kick, and cross to the obscurantist language of American football such as two-point conversion, safety, first down, line of scrimmage, etc.

"The world's most popular sport? Puh-leeze! This is like saying that dirt is more popular than gold simply because there is more of it. Last time I checked, soccer was very popular where starvation, archery, and badminton were the alternative activities. Where soccer has to compete with the NFL, college football, and basketball -- not to mention WWE, the X Games, cheerleading contests, and cage-fighting -- not so much." I rest my case. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 06:59, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

See my entry above. This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You have no case on which to rest. The good people of Madrid and Munich -- hardly starving cities -- can choose to play whatever sports they wish. Jdixon 13:30, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

"Soccer is biggest where the "national teams" are the main sports focus of a nation. Hey, you can't get much more socialist than that. And everyone on every street and in every town pulls for the same team. Wow. Isn't that exciting? Whom do you pull for? Oh yeah, the national team.

And let's not forget the off-sides rule. Without getting buried in minutiae, suffice it to say that off-sides in soccer is like making the bomb illegal in football or the fast break illegal in basketball. This is a socialist sport. We can't be having any risk-reward equations here. You see, in soccer, it's not fair that you might take a chance to weaken your defense in order to spring a man deep downfield behind the defense. That would be unfair in a free-market, venture-capital-type way. No, no, no! You must let the defense be behind you. You cannot beat them downfield until you have the ball. That would be unfair and, no doubt, mean-spirited.

So ingrained is this into the soccer psyche that many of the world's best defenses employ what they call "the off-sides trap." In other words, they use the socialist rules to the hilt. Here, a defenseman gets beaten downfield on purpose to get a call against his opponent.

It's a lot like using high tax rates and the IRS to keep everyone's financial strata the same." --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:02, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

Bias

Isn't this site, by trying to point out the "liberal" bias in Wikipedia, etc., conforming to a bias itself?

We don't claim to be without bias, as does Wikipedia, unsigned user. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:56, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

Liberals seem to think that "unbiased" should mean that equal weight is given to liberal gossip and untruths. Conservapedia doesn't feel the need to give any credibility to these. RaymondP 19:07, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

Soccer error

Fixed, and thanks for the heads-up. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:22, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Suing Arizona

I think we need to mention that the liberal government in Washington is SUING Arizona forattempting to stop ILLEGAL immigration. I can't wait till 2012 when Obama and the other liberals will finally be kicked out of Washington and Americans can take America back for Americans.--IScott 18:51, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, Scott.....we have had many items about this in the Main Page News column, and I am preparing another at this very moment! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:01, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

With all due respect, the federal government is suing Arizona because Arizona put a law in place that is flat out unconstitutional. It violates the 1st and 9th Amendments right off the bat, and its enforcement, should it be allowed to come into force, could bring in questions as to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and even 8th Amendments. There is a difference between the responsibilities of the federal and state government. Arizona, albeit because certain legislators do not feel the federal government is doing its job properly, has tried to take this move to prompt some action and has, in fact overstepped its authority. SB1070 does nothing to stop illegal immigration. It does nothing to seal the borders. It does nothing to discourage employers from exploiting the illegal labor force already present in Arizona and it puts local law enforcement in the precarious position of having to straddle jurisdictional boundaries it never had to before (despite the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department's taking it upon itself to try to, which in itself has been challenged and quashed on a number of occasions). If conservatism is about respect for the law and the constitution, then it has to work from all sides, both from the top down and from the bottom up.

Where is this law unconstitutional, and with whom is it being violated? If it is working against American citizens - who have contitutional rights - then we remove it. If it is working against people who are illegally within this country - people who are NOT citizens and have no rights under our Constitution - then I say keep it in place. As to your allegations against SB1070, there is absolutely no difference between it and the federal law already on the books. But Arizona is doing the one thing that the Feds will not do: enforce it. Liberals - and I assume that you're a liberal - have shown time and time again that they have no respect for the law, no respect for the country and anyone in it; they will demand that illegals stay in this country and make the American citizens pay for it through job, housing, education, and health discrimination. Liberals do not care that Americans - including those Americans of Hispanic descent - are targeted by illegals through identity theft and other, often violent, crimes; and while liberals champion the environment and how clean it should be, they look the other way from the hundreds of tons of trash dumped by illegals throughout our borderlands as they continue to break in the country. So user:Phxsafado, don't start to correct us by coming in here and playing the hypocrite's advocate. Karajou 13:42, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Well, Karajou, I'm hardly a liberal. I am a citizen of Arizona and a conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater, a concept which appears foreign to you. The Constitution has clearly delineated what is a federal responsibility (immigration and border control) versus what are state reponsibilities. The 9th Amendment states that powers not reserved to the federal government fall to the states. The 10th states that powers that do not fall to the states then go to the people directly. There is the crux of the federal lawsuit and I happen to agree with it. I have also read the law itself. It contains within it prohibitions against certain types of personal communication between individuals, namely hand gestures or signs, which is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. The rest of the law is poorly written. It is vague and leaves far too much open to the interpretation of officers on the ground and opens Arizona up to the potential of myriad lawsuits that could have the effect ultimately of hurting the conservative cause far more than helping it. I do not like or approve of illegal immigration. I do, however, accept it as a fact of life here in Arizona. I would like to see the federal government do more to stem the tide of the actual causes of the problem and work on actual solutions to the problem. Hysteria gets us nowhere in a big hurry.

I may not live in Arizona, but I've seen illegals here openly do the wrong things and get away with it while laughing their heads off; I've seen the wrong people in positions of power give these illegals drivers licenses like they were candy; I've seen illegals commit crimes galore; I've seen liberal supporters of them just say "so what!"; and I refuse to sit here and "accept it as a fact of life". Your position clearly stated here is a moderate position. What did Barry Goldwater say about that? "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. " We conservatives are demanding the protection of this country, the securing of the borders, the removal of people who are illegally in it, and Goldwater if he was alive would support our position...which I think appears foreign to you. So, don't come in here and claim you're a Goldwater conservative and talk like a bleeding-heart lib at the same time. That's called "speaking with a forked tongue". Karajou 14:12, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Germany's Soccer Players

If only Germany would end its ban on homeschooling, maybe it could have some homegrown Christian stars too.

Conservatives can be homeless, too

This is amazing. A great news story, in my opinion. During a time in history, today, when progressives and socialists who despise the American Flag would enjoy such a site, here comes a homeless man--hailed as a hero--saving the American Flag as it fell from its flag pole during a storm. This man is a patriot, which is more than I can say about our current President dictator. DerekE 17:18, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Well we don't really know diddly about his political leanings, other than the man did the right thing in "rescuing" the Stars and Stripes. You point out a problem never addressed by conservatives and liberals alike; if homeless, and needing an ID, it is nearly impossible to remedy the situation. One needs computer access, email, a valid mailing address to apply for a replacement ID. Then one needs a means to pay for that replacement. On top of that, one often needs to obtain a notarized statement, which can cost money as well, just to apply for needed documents! Governments have allowed for a waiver of filing fees to run for office, but to my knowledge there isn't a fee-waiver, anywhere, to replace the rudimentary documents one needs to properly navigate the system and recover from catastrophic life events. And yes, I have known several conservatives reduced to homelessness by circumstances, both of the self-made kind and those that can only be described as unforeseen and unavoidable.... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:31, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Unemployed aliens

Report: Obama administration 'Silent Raids' Lead to Firings, Not Deportations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement audits of companies hiring undocumented workers have led to thousands of illegal immigrants losing their jobs, but have allowed them to stay in the U.S., the New York Times reports! So the "compassionate" liberal, Barack Obama thinks its okay to get people fired, then leave them here to starve, start a life of crime, be homeless? Sickening.

No, your taxes will pay their welfare benefits and their children's school tuition. --Ed PoorTalk 14:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

Jesse Jackson making a fool of himself

Oh, this is just too good to ignore: Jesse Jackson employs some hilarious reverse racism and ends up sounding like an angry, childish loon. Take a look at this: [1] I suggest it for the front page. EMorris 11:17, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

Posted a story about Jesse Jackson's remarks. You were alert in seeing the news and mentioning it here.--Andy Schlafly 13:52, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

Possible Mainpage Story: Loss of Trees In Amazon Due To Storm

(citation moved to Main Page, thanks for superb suggestion below)--Andy Schlafly 11:32, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Note what the article says: these trees were killed by a violent storm. Upon dying, they release their stored carbon into the air, which contributes to climate change, which leads to more violent storms.

Anyone hear ANYTHING in that description that involves man-made climate change? To me, this sounds pretty much like the evidence-based position conservatives have taken all along: climate change is a natural, cyclical phenomenon. --Benp 11:25, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Gitmo Detainees Serve Time By Playing Games, Talking to Family on Skype, Taking Classes. This is the horrible, inhumane imprisonment the United States subjects vile terrorists/murderers to! [2] --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:02, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

It was never about the conditions there, but about the fact that we dared detain them at all. --Ed PoorTalk 15:42, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Atheist Filtering Software treats God as an Online threat

“GodBlock is a web filter that blocks religious content,” states the company’s website. “Once installed, “GodBlock will test each page that your child visits before it is loaded, looking for passages from holy texts, names of religious figures, and other signs of religious information. If none are found, then your child is allowed to browse freely.” [3]Daniel1212 11:30, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Amazing that the Creator of all life, the personification of love, instills such irrational fear in some! I am not surprised at the lengths liberals and atheists will go to justify their bad decisions! Such devices will not save them, and I think they know that. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:30, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

I am fairly confident that GodBlock is not intended to actually be widely used, but rather is a parody of web-filtering software that blocks content objectionable to Christians. Tisane 14:26, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

The objectively baseless moral foundation of atheism easily allows them to justify anything that seems "reasonable" to achieving their goals. Just ask Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Man's "golden compass" easily points south, in contrast to the immutable Scriptures. To the glory of God and the good of men who want to the light of Christ. See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Atheism1.htmlDaniel1212 11:43, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Increasing decline in study time

The National Survey of Student Engagement found in 2009 that 62 percent of college students studied 15 hours a week or less, yet they took home primarily As and Bs on their report cards. [4]. Reported by the Boston Globe; Home / Ideas, "What happened to studying?", July 4, 2010

From 1960 to 2010 the number of hours that the average college student - off all ability levels and from liberal arts to masters colleges - studies each week has been steadily dropping. In 1961 The average student at a four-year college studied about 24 hours a week versus an average of just 14 hours today. The greatest decline in student study time took place between 1961 and 1981, before computers became common in colleges. The researchers suggest the cause is the growing power of students, and the unwillingness of professors to challenge them. According to time-use surveys analyzed by professors Philip Babcock, at the University of California Santa Barbara, and Mindy Marks, at the University of California Riverside. "What happened to studying?", The Boston Globe; Home / Ideas,July 4, 2010 Daniel1212 11:31, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Can I take this as an invitation for me, who I think most Conservapedians would consider to be a liberal, to get involved in attempting to improve the factual accuracy of some of the articles named above? --TonySidaway 17:42, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

TonySidaway, I have no problem with editing founded on proof and evidence and not mere speculation posing as facts and well reasoned argument that ignores pertinent data. Secondly, if you are looking for me to specifically respond to postings on talk pages you might make, current priorities and requests on my time may preclude me from responding to your postings on the talk pages promptly which is something I have done in the past with various postings on the talk pages of articles. Therefore, I would encourage you to do your due diligence before making your posts so as to avoid argumentation which ignores well supported and well reasoned arguments from the opposition. I do think it is incumbent upon you to consider all the evidence and go where the evidence leads. conservative 20:33, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

I wasn't proposing to get involved in extensive discussion, but to work on improving the factual accuracy of articles.

As I've remarked before, a more open policy towards editing would have produced an encyclopedia less full of disreputable nonsense; the articles on the named subjects are among the most notorious on the web. If general editors such as myself, many of whom have considerably better knowledge of the subject matter than the creationists who wrote those articles, were to be invited to improve their factual accuracy that would be a step forward in salvaging Conservapedia as a project. And the irony is that the factual accuracy of the articles could be improved without sacrificing any conservative principles. I'll go back to lurking and await such a general invitation. --TonySidaway 00:17, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Tony, the editorial policy here is close enough to NPOV that you should have problem fitting in. But during your first few weeks, you might want to practice prefacing additions with phrases like, "On the other hand, liberals say X" or "This position is disputed by Y".

We want the best of both worlds: to avoid the sort of censorship which plagues Wikipedia, but also to avoid turning articles and their talk pages into battlegrounds. (Whenever I see a battle starting, I urge contributors to write an Essay or start a Debate page.) --Ed PoorTalk 23:50, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, Ed, but the content of those articles is decidedly non-neutral. Even your suggestion, "on the other hand, liberal say X" is not very helpful when it isn't a matter of liberals versus conservatives at all but a matter of the facts being misunderstood by whoever is editing the articles. --TonySidaway 00:20, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Hi Tony! Keep in mind we don't strive for neutrality here. We are conservative and Christian. If you have questions, please post to my page, email or IM, I believe you have all of mine. I'm only trying to avoid any Headless Chicken mode developing...--ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:45, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

-TonySidaway, are you bluffing? The reason I ask this question is that you have yet to point out a single factual error in the articles. Instead of spending so much time winding up for a supposed hardball pitch, why don't you actually throw a hardball if you have one in your hand? I think your hand is empty. conservative 03:23, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

I think it's also important to point out that "neutrality" is not the same as "factual accuracy." Tony, I don't think you'll have too many problems editing articles with cited facts, as long as you leave out the liberal bias. The differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, and where problems would arise, are most commonly seen with articles on politicized topics, such as climate change and global warming (also see: Politics of Global Warming and Politicized science). Wikipedia presents these articles as subjects based on "accurate facts," but in some cases that is simply not true, it's deceitful to say otherwise, and in many cases this deceitful practice is written in a way so as to push a environmental or social agenda. The reality is that many of these topics that have become politicized subjects are still theories; in other cases it is on a subject about a known failed philosophy, such as with socialism and communism, although Wikipedia will embellish these incentive degrading philosophies as "successful," in order to keep things "neutral." This goes very well with Barack Obama's idealist world economy where all countries start over on a "fair playing field," to keep the world "politically correct" and "neutral," enforcing big government control so that people are completely void of emotion and individual freedom of choice. At any rate, I think this is what Ed was talking about when he said, on all subjects that have become politicized and at best is a topic that is still a theory, he said "you might want to practice prefacing factual additions with phrases like, 'On the other hand, liberals say X' or 'This position is disputed by Y'". If this encyclopedic, conservative practice is neglected when considering making additions to Conservapedia, it can easily take an article that is still a work-in-progress getting edited and written by the Best of the Public and turn it into the work of scientific fascism. Just remember to always cite your work and leave out the political correctness. We all understand that not everything has become politicized yet, pending future big government moves to control even more private industry and individual thought. If you think that this is a community and encyclopedia that you would like to contribute to, I for one would be very interested to read the knowledgeable information you have and want to add to Conservapedia. DerekE 03:54, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Tony, sorry for the delayed response ... I actually get busy in the real world on occasion. :-)

If you're saying that, "No one is entitled to their own facts," then I agree with you, as would probably all our senior editors. But some matters of science, particularly evolution and homosexuality which you mentioned, are actually not as clear cut as many people think.

People who say, "I believe in evolution" often mean that human beings, animals, living things in general came into being by physical means only. This is a position which specifically excludes any possibility of a Creator. To say, in that sense, that "Evolution is a fact" is to transcend science and to tread on metaphysical, philosophical or religious ground.

However, to say that a certain fossil was dated as 800 million years old is "a fact", because that would be its age calculated according to well-established theories of carbon dating.

The distinction here is between saying It is a fact that this dinosaur appeared 800 million years ago and Carbon dating methods place it as having appeared then.

Do you see what I'm saying? We are making a distinction between theory and "fact". A theory explains observations, based on ideas of cause and effect. A scientific theory is, at least in principle, falsifiable; that is, we can think of an event or finding which could contradict the theory and prove it wrong.

Does this apply to Evolution and Homosexuality? Are any scientists in the mainstream (i.e., whose articles can be published in a journal without pressure for the editor to resign) trying to falsify theories or hypotheses on these areas of research? Do the proponents of theories welcome attempts to find fault with their work?

Conservapedia welcomes corrections on matters of fact, but it rejects attempts to describe unproven theories as fact. The idea that homosexuality is genetically based, or that it is utterly unrelated to the human faculty of choice, or that it is immutable must be tested. It cannot be taken as a given, except in politics.

Conservatives use science to inform their political positions. We do not try to make the science conform to our preconceived ideas.

If you find errors of fact in any article, jump in and correct it, or at least email me privately. But please don't say that facts are being misunderstood without giving an example. It gives the impression that you came only to condemn ... that you made an empty offer, hoping to find a refusal and use it against us.

I refuse to believe that the Tony Sidaway I've worked with at Wikipedia would do that. --Ed PoorTalk 12:07, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Obama's approval ratings - fox news 43%

The political consultant Dick Morris claims that once an American presidents approval rating goes into the low 40s his is politically dead and cannot get things done and this seems like a common sense rule of thumb unless of course a president has very high numbers of people from his party in both houses and very high political homogeneity within his own party (or unless he has stacked the courts with people from within his own political ideology). According to the main page post just now, Fox news says Obama has a 43% approval rating among the US public. Does anyone know of any other recent presidential approval polls as I do not want to solely rely on one poll. conservative 22:01, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Nevermind: I have a high respect for the Gallup organization and they report Obama has a 44% approval rating based a 3 day rolling average.[6] Also, Rassmussen reports: "Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance."[7]conservative 22:09, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Opinion Dynamics, who did the polling I posted about, is highly respected on all sides of the spectrum. I seem to recall another in a similar vein, perhaps down lower in the news or recently archived, Conservative...it could well be the Rasmussen one you speak of. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:47, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

While a diminishing approval rating certainly does say something about public sentiment, it's worth noting that George W. Bush's approval rating fell below the low 40s in Fall 2005 and never made it back up above 45; indeed, they declined continually thereafter, probably helping lead us to our current presidency. If Obama's ratings continue to mantain Bush levels (post 2005), then it may be time for some more "you will lose" mainpage stories. DanieleGiusto 13:34, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

I don't think the private sector economy is going to replace the American jobs lost recently anytime soon given the anti-business Obama administration policies. I also don't think the Chinese have the stomach to fund a series of so called stimulus packages. Obama is basically a man who has been at an economic Chinese buffet restaurant for five hours and the Chinese are soon going to be telling him, "You go now!"[8] I think upcoming stagflation is going to eat away at Obama's presidential approval ratings. conservative 14:32, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

"According to the FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll, Obama’s job approval among Democrats has dropped from 84% two weeks ago (June 29-30) to 76% on July 13-14. At 76%, this level of job approval is below any the Fox News poll has ever recorded." --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:14, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Incorrect Headline

In the headlines for the "In the News" section it says that "most voters say when they pull that lever, they will be sending a negative message to President Obama" however that contradicts the statement saying that the Fox News poll says that only "41% of voters will cast their ballots to register opposition to President Obama's policies." The problem is that 41% of voters is not "most."--CR 23:52, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

The full quote is:

“

The poll, released Friday, finds that 41 percent of voters will cast their ballots to register opposition to President Obama's policies. A third (33 percent) will vote to express their support. The policies of the administration will not be a factor for 20 percent of voters.

”

If you read the story, and followed the link, you would see that I chose to highlight the most significant findings, namely that 41%, aggregated responders, take a negative view of the Obama administration, and will use the mid-term elections to "send a message".. That is astounding, so many people, Democrats (11%), and especially Independent Voters (41%) view Obama negatively. Even more astounding is the finding that the Tea Party's endorsement is more likely to influence Independent voters than those of the Labor Unions!

So the term "most" is indeed accurate, insofar as the headline goes. News items are those of the designated source, not mine or CP's, and that headline is what Fox used. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:04, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

Unborn child course at university?

Hi, on the front page of the site it says that a university in New York has a course on the Unborn Child. I was wondering what university in specific this was referring to? (Sorry if this is in the wrong place!!) ThomasThePatriot 00:37, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

State University of New York at Binghamton, I think. I can find the cite for you if needed.--Andy Schlafly 00:56, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Thank you very much, Mr. Schlafly. And a cite would be very nice if it isn't too much trouble! ThomasThePatriot 01:05, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Meditation and addiction

I deleted the news item on treating cocaine addiction with meditation techniques of Falun Gong. We're barking up the wrong tree when we complain about kooky-sounding scientific experiments.

Science progresses when someone tests an idea. Some, if not most, of our scientific progress has come from someone with a novel idea who took the time and trouble to test it out. Kepler spent years of his life doing math without a calculator to discover the elliptical paths of the planets. Semmelweiss brooked ridicule, exile, and was thrown into a mental asylum, while championing the germ theory of disease (before rich and popular men like Pasteur and Lister brought the theory to mainstream attention).

And if you care about people more than money, you might look into the way the UN has handled malaria eradication, with useless and costly ideas like mosquito nets, when DDT is cheaper and more effective (see DDT ban). --Ed PoorTalk 10:24, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Typo - you can delete this after fixing

Just wanted to point out that in the main page news story about Ms. Whiting, "Tuscon" should read "Tucson". I'd change it myself but I can't edit the main page. --MarcoT2 07:38, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

That's not a mistake. It's a direct quote, and we don't alter quotes. But thanks for alerting us to this.--Andy Schlafly 13:08, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Obama's Vacation

Why is there no cognizance of the fact that, historically, the President of the United States has had the freedom to take periodic time away from the White House to spend time with his family and decompress from the demands of the office? Bush himself spent more than 400 days at both his ranch in Crawford and at Camp David, respectively, all the while the Iraq War was going on and the economy was slowing down. Former President Reagan spent more time at Camp David than any other president in history, partaking in such activities as wood working and horseback riding. With these things considered, why is it so important that Obama has taken some time for himself and his family? -- LisaM 14:57, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

The problem is not the fact that Obama or any president takes a vacation during a crisis; the problem is the clear double-standard employed by the MSM and the liberal left. In 18 months in office, Obama has had over ninety days of vaction; he's been golfing and doing other relaxing things as well, and much of that is during a crisis. Bush 1 and 2 did the same thing; Reagan did the same thing; Clinton did the same thing. The double-standard is the heaps of praise by the MSM and liberal left upon Obama and Clinton, and pushing the crisis to the realm of minor trivia; and these same people generated heaps of hate-filled scorn upon the Bushes and Reagan for exactly the same thing. And don't forget the "minor trivia" during the past couple months: while the MSM and the liberal left is praising the Obamas for their stand against childhood obesity, they're ignoring the fact that the Obamas went out for some fattening ice cream, despite the rules they want enforced on all Americans[9]. All they're doing is harping on the scene from The Emperor's New Clothes. Karajou 15:13, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Lisa, conservatives measure things with results. While Reagan was chopping wood and riding his horses, he managed to free the world of Communism and set the country on course for an economic boom of unprecedented length, which Clinton tried (and still does) take credit for. One should also take note that the Iraq war is still going on, even as we prepare to leave, and the war in Afghanistan is heating up. Karajou gave a good answer above, which includes mention of the liberal's double-standard, the complete and utter deceit on the part of the MSM, which is detailed in the main page news, that completely proves what CP has been saying for several years now. I don't begrudge even Obama his vacations. But if he is going to urge his fellow Americans to help save the Gulf Coast economy by vacationing there, one would have hoped he would have taken his family there as well, by way of a good example, not fly about as far away north as he could have. Finally, as to results, his massive spending is not helping the economy, but rather setting it back. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:15, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Lisa, in addition to the responses above, I don't recall Reagan or either Bush hobnobbing with rock stars on a weekday during a crisis, as Obama did. Reagan and both Bush's had clear work ethics, despite being in a hostile media environment. Obama, in contrast, is an overly sympathetic media environment.--Andy Schlafly 20:46, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Karajou, I do not see the relevance of referring to Obama's family going to have ice cream. I am not for sure if you know this, but ice cream is not the leading cause of obesity, instead it is a sedentary lifestyle coupled with eating high caloric foods loaded with saturated fats. What Obama is encouraging is healthy living with a healthy lifestyle. How can you denigrate that? TK, the "massive spending is not helping the economy" remark is a red herring and serves little to address any point. Andy, how would you compare former President Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier in a fighter jet to pomp and a banner that declares, "Mission Accomplished," to Obama's supposed media exposure? - LisaM 12:51, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

LisaM, I do know that ice cream is not a healthy treat, and I do know that the Obama's are engaging in hypocritical behavior when they tell us what we can or cannot eat while they get away with breaking their own rules; I do know that this depression - and the Great Depression of the 1930s - was made worse by massive, uncontrolled spending by members of the Federal Government; I do know that liberals regret the "Mission Accomplished" banner onboard USS George Washington because of direct hatred against Bush for removing a bloodthirsty dictator who started two previous wars against four sovereign countries; and I do know that we will continue to cite the hypocrisy, stupidity, rabid hate, bigotry, and utter lies made by liberals on this site, which demands a question asked directly to you: Why do you continue to side with those people who lie to the American public, cheat on the American public, steal from the American public, and hate the American public? Why do you continue to do that, LisaM? Karajou 13:05, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Karajou, where exactly is the hypocrisy in what the Obama family is doing if they mediate their occasional treat with an active lifestyle? As for the Great Depression in the early part of the 20th century, there are heated debates on whether government spending aided the country or served as a detriment. Do you have a degree in economics? Can you say either way with any real evidence except, "Liberals, liberals, liberals?" The "Mission Accomplished" banner is regrettable because it portrayed an unrealistic image of how the war was going and how the war would continue to be after that moment. When the Republican party ceases to act in the interests of Big Business over those of the populace it claims to represent, when the Republican party can act as a bastion of civil rights instead of a barrier, when Republicans can look in the mirror and remove the splinter from their own eye, you may find that people may offer them support rather than not doing so. - LisaM 13:15, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

A question has been put to you, LisaM. You will answer it. Karajou 13:17, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Your question is nothing but a series of presumptive half-truths clouded by confirmation bias. You offer no evidence that any of these things occur outside of your perception of what liberals do. Karajou, why are you unable to apply critical thinking and reasoning skills for yourself rather than falling victim to the same patterned thought of this damnable political boogie man who sets out to do nothing but make your life miserable? - LisaM 13:22, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

A question has been put to you, LisaM; maybe it's your own presumptive bias that prevents you from even looking at - let alone read - the reams of evidence from sources which confirms our side, the evidence that we post here on a daily basis. Answer the question. Karajou 13:26, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

How can the evidence you put forth to support your statements be taken seriously when it's you yourself that creates the evidence? Liberals are bad because they lie, cheat, and steal. How do I know they lie, cheat, and steal? Liberals are bad. I am not answering the question. - LisaM 13:29, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

You answered part of it: liberals are bad; you refused to answer the part as to why you side with them. Saying that we "create" this sort of evidence is just another lie inflicted by your side. Since you refuse to answer the question, then I refuse to allow you to be here. Karajou 13:33, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Lisa, a Red Herring? Really? Can you not open your mind far enough, stretch the opinions you have voluntarily chosen to accept, and actually bother to read what economists, of both liberal and conservative bent, are saying? And I want to know how much you personally want to work to repay, because someone, eventually, will have to pay for this spending you do know that, right? This isn't a complicated issue; other than what politicians like to create as complications. You spend, someone has to pay. Period. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:47, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

If Obama wants a Sabbath day off once a week, I have no problem with that even though I don't believe he is a sincere follower of God. But if Obama wants to load Federal debt upon US citizen backs, give loads of stimulus money to his political buddies, and bail out his banker friends, then I have a problem with him taking a vacation. conservative 18:34, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Crawford, Texas was the Western White House (if there is not an article created, someone should create one) for George W. Bush. His vacations were working vacations. Soho 21:55, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

A few views from the so-called Main Stream Media

1. George W Bush possibly supporting racism by briefly speaking at Bob Jones University is a story. (Obama's long relationship with Rev Wright is not a story)

2. John McCain's relationship with a female lobbyist is a story. (Obama's relationship with Weatherunderground founder is not a story)

3. Accusations Tea Party movement is racist is a story. (Accusations so-called health care reform is socialist is not a story)

4. NBC News deciding Iraq war is a civil war is a story (When it stopped being a civil war not a story)

5. Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 911 is controversial and a story (Andrew Breitbart's work is suspicious and not a story)

I read this blog post and had to share, as increasingly the public is more sophisticated at spotting the MSM's liberal deceit. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:43, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

C. Everett Koop

C Everett Koop is not a traditional conservative by any stretch

He has supported the general concept of universal health care for some time now, even supporting Hillary Clinton's plan in 1993, but opposing ObamaCare in 2009-2010. Whether you agree or disagree with Dr. Koop, at least you can believe he has come to his conclusions via reason. This is why his opposition to Kagan holds a lot of weight. Soho 21:50, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

PA Gaming

Pennsylvania bringing in more money with a very high rate of taxation than other states with lower rates does not make sense (it contradicts the laffer curve). Can ABC news be trusted as a source? "Creative Accounting"?--JLewis 16:08, 26 July 2010 (EDT)

This may be too old to bring up, but truth can never have an expiration date. You comment about the Laffer Curve implies you don't understand it. The Laffer Curve implies that there is some optimal tax rate, and moving from that, IN ANY DIRECTION, reduces revenues. All that this PA datum tells us is that PA has a lower than optimal tax rate (that is, the tax rate should probably be increased to optimize revenues). It is a common misconception by conservatives that lower taxes = more revenues, which is simply not true, even if you believe the Laffer Curve hypothesis. On a related note, the Laffer Curve has a few fundamental flaws that I would be happy to discuss, if anyone is interested.

The central point of the Laffer Curve is that lowering taxes often increases revenues. I don't see the basis for your claim that Pennsylvania could bring in more revenue by increasing taxes.--Andy Schlafly 22:17, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

That is not the central point of the Laffer Curve; in particular I object to the term "often". All the Laffer Curve says is that lower taxes COULD increase revenues. And, comparing PA to other states, we see that increasing taxation from the average tax rate (that is, the average of other states) to the tax rate of PA, revenues increase. Assuming the difference in this two rates is relatively small (I have no data on this, so I can't say how small), it is not likely that the optimal rates lies between these two rates (assuming that we have no knowledge of where this optimum is). So then, it is more likely that an small increase in tax rates will result increased revenues.

Also, from various studies of different countries, the optimum tax rate probably lies in the 60% range, so we have a LONG way to go to reach this. For instance, the Soviet Union had what could be considered a 100% tax rate, and still had high levels of revenue. (Please, don't call me a communist because I referred to the SU - I want to make it clear that there is a strong difference between "revenue maximizing tax rate" and "best tax rate". In all of this discussion, I am referring to the former.)

Newark schools

What a scam "indistrict" charter schools are. Because of Charter schools that this program even exists. District unions fought tooth and nail against these schools, meanwhile given extra millions to turn things around. They same people who failed the kids miserably now direct the new venture. Forced to compete, indistrict schools follow the same old liberalism with new buzz words like 'life skills'; "like setting goals, handling peer pressure, and eating healthfully" and "cultural program with an Afro-Caribbean and Latino focus." Then the NYT spins the so-called "new" achievement "Newark’s attempt to create a new public school model is the most ambitious reform to be tried here in decades".--Jpatt 00:23, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

More liberal claptrap from Al Franken

That same network neutrality is also what ensures conservapedia.com and any other sites that support the new Tea Party Movement loads as fast as the fact-distorting MSM. Just something to keep in mind, while we're all spreading truth :). ErikG 14:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

The Internet should be subject to the same laws as everywhere here in the U.S. No slander or libel allowed. We need stricter controls over who does what on the net, and those kind of rules are coming soon, thanks to the liberals. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:16, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Some counting errors are bound to creep in. I'll doublecheck your count, and welcome the comments of others. The point, obviously, is that the pattern is geometric. There is a typo in the U.S. Constitution also, and in most translations of the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 11:34, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

The "One fat, one thin" news item

I'm not quite sure what this news item is trying to imply. JohnTM 12:47, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Our obesity article has a lot of good information that might help (I had never heard of the correlation either). Not knowing about something, though, doesn't necessarily make it false. It might be cliche, but you learn something new every day right? Tyler ZoranTalk 12:51, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

(In reference to liberals being more overweight on average than conservatives, sorry if I didn't specify that was the correlation I'm referring to). I'll oversimplify a bit, but we try to follow what Proverbs says. Most others do not. Does that clear it up? Tyler ZoranTalk 12:53, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

I literally do not know what to type. I am at a loss for words. JohnTM 12:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Proverbs 23:2 (KJV)

Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh. Proverbs 23:20 (KJV)

Sorry for the delay; I'm ashamed to say I couldn't remember the exact passage(s) off the top of my head. There are numerous others, however, I'll see if I can find those too. Tyler ZoranTalk 13:03, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Maybe I spoke too soon. I'm assuming your at a loss just because it's new info right? I've always been taught that it's pretty black and white (gluttony=bad, no gluttony=good, etc) but like I said, I hadn't really heard much about the specifics until I poked around further. In that respect I was probably in the same boat you are. If that's not it I'm happy to try (key word here) to answer any more questions. Tyler ZoranTalk 13:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

JohnTM, Tyler's postings are clear, but I'm wondering what your point is. I hope you're not trying to censor observations about obesity and its possible correlation with political views. You're in the wrong place if you object to this type of free speech.--Andy Schlafly 16:27, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

It seems as though liberals cannot much stand humor wrapped up in object lessons, can they? I guess its okay if they use humor to communicate ideas and thoughts, but of course they will not grant that right to conservatives! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:41, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

I'd like to point out the correlation between political party and beauty. [10] --Jpatt 16:57, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Mongrel

The word mongrel, by definition, is not an offensive term. It simply means an individual of mixed or unknown ancestry, hence why it is sometimes used to describe dogs who are not of a purebred lineage. To pick and choose the definition that you prefer does a disservice to the word itself, just as one might argue that the common use of the word machismo is inappropriate on this site. While machismo can mean a sense of masculine pride, it can also mean exaggerated masculinity. Just as mongrel has taken on negative connotations, machismo has as well, as it can easily be taken as male chauvinism given that displays of machismo often include over-aggressiveness and domination over women.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:JaneX(talk)

I sense a defense of the Manchild himself.--Jpatt 12:16, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

JaneX, when someone is called a dog or is treated like a dog, then yes, the term is offensive. The slaves were treated just like that; Moslems refer to people that disgust them as "dogs". And a "mongrel" is less than a "pure bred". So what is going on is Obama calling the descendants of slaves in our country something offensive, and getting away with it. The question is should we give him a pass like any other liberal in the country? Karajou 14:42, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

John Kerry

Why ha there been nothing about John Kerry Refusing to pay taxes on his boat? I think that should go up as it is liberal hypocrisy at its worst--SayidR 11:59, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Not to mention Charlie Rengal's tax fiasco. Just because the mainstream media didn't cover these stories doesn't mean we don't have to. --Jwilhem 12:01, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

SayidR, see the liberal hypocrisy entry for information on John Kerry's tax evasion. I believe it was added almost a week ago, around the same time it was in the news feed.

Jwilhem, the story about Rangel is also on the news feed now. Tyler ZoranTalk 12:09, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

We've followed his corruption for nearly two years. I'm positive we'll add trial info.--Jpatt 12:16, 30 July 2010 (EDT)